The Memo Redux

[Ddrak]

Trying "every option" in an obvious case of end result failure was a damaging path for us. "Every option" was Saddams hope and game.

I disagree. I believe coercive inspections would have solved the immediate crisis and would in now way result in a stalemate.

However, it seems we do agree that McClellan was full of it when he said they used war as a "last resort".

Iraq never surrendered in 1991. They accepted the terms of the ceasefire which were finally laid out in UNSCR 687. Had they surrendered, Saddam would have been taken into custody and the whole thing would have been very different.

Dd

[Partha]

Your point 2 is wrong. (No surprise). They had to have Security Council approval - that's the whole 'remains siezed of the matter' language.

[Ddrak]

I have to agree with Partha there - the language of every UN resolution on the whole Iraq mess was to refer the situation to the UNSC on the event of Iraq breaking the agreements, not to immediately reinstate hostilities. No nation had the right to enforce the UN ceasefire without the approval of the UN itself.

However, the US (and any other nation) has the soverign right to conduct a *new* war should they feel that Iraq presented a clear and present danger to them, or if there is a pressing humanitarian need for intervention. Either of those issues could be conceivably applied in this case.

Dd

[Partha]

Except, of course, that they specifically used violations of UN resolutions to start this 'new' war. That's illegal under Geneva.

[Aabe]

Trying "every option" in an obvious case of end result failure was a damaging path for us. "Every option" was Saddams hope and game.

I disagree. I believe coercive inspections would have solved the immediate crisis and would in now way result in a stalemate.

However, it seems we do agree that McClellan was full of it when he said they used war as a "last resort".

Iraq never surrendered in 1991. They accepted the terms of the ceasefire which were finally laid out in UNSCR 687. Had they surrendered, Saddam would have been taken into custody and the whole thing would have been very different.

Dd

I'm unsure how you coersively inspect in a militant country that pushes the inspecters around. The only way you get into an unwilling militant country with forces to enforce the coersive inspections would be to .. umm .. oh say invade it.

[Partha]

It's very simple, Aabe, and was spelled out when the option was floated: Troops go in with the inspectors. Attempting to freeze out the inspectors is much more unlikely with armed troops accompanying, and any hostile actions versus the armed troops = casus belli. Simple, neat, and it would have worked. Instead we got the shit we're in now.

[Ddrak]

Aabe,

This was the proposal floated at the time: http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/IraqCEIP.pdf

It's a decent read and a viable alternative option. Whether you think it was better or worse than a full scale invasion is a perfectly valid debate though. Like I said, I only object to the White House rewriting history and calling the war a "final resort".

Dd

[Trollbait]

ZOMG Partha is a genius...he should be President

[Partha]

I'd do better than the current occupant, no question.

[Kulaf]

It's very simple, Aabe, and was spelled out when the option was floated: Troops go in with the inspectors. Attempting to freeze out the inspectors is much more unlikely with armed troops accompanying, and any hostile actions versus the armed troops = casus belli. Simple, neat, and it would have worked. Instead we got the shit we're in now.

Gee.....isn't that the very same thing that France said publically they would veto if it ever came before the UNSC?

[Kulaf]

Today, no nation can possibly claim that Iraq has disarmed. And it will not disarm so long as Saddam Hussein holds power. For the last four-and-a-half months, the United States and our allies have worked within the Security Council to enforce that Council's long-standing demands. Yet, some permanent members of the Security Council have publicly announced they will veto any resolution that compels the disarmament of Iraq. These governments share our assessment of the danger, but not our resolve to meet it. Many nations, however, do have the resolve and fortitude to act against this threat to peace, and a broad coalition is now gathering to enforce the just demands of the world. The United Nations Security Council has not lived up to its responsibilities, so we will rise to ours.

[Aabe]

It's very simple, Aabe, and was spelled out when the option was floated: Troops go in with the inspectors. Attempting to freeze out the inspectors is much more unlikely with armed troops accompanying, and any hostile actions versus the armed troops = casus belli. Simple, neat, and it would have worked. Instead we got the shit we're in now.

Okay would THIS have been your last and final option before invasion? Or would you come up with something else if this failed?

It certainly would have been useful if it worked.

"It's very simple" you say?

What has to happen.
Saddam has to lose face and allow a foriegn armed force free reign of his country. Then he needs to stand by and do nothing so the team can complete its unfettered inspections. That would be simple.

What could he do about it?
A disagreement ensues and "someone fires first" (of course both sides will accuse the other of first fire)
Our friendly muslim TV broadcast shows dead innocent civilians (probably NOT killed in the exchange) proclaiming the infidels kill civilians and this is what happens when they are allowed in your country. The inspections were a cover and are only here to shame the muslim people.

We could set up a "civilian" sniper to pick off a few of the escort team, that was only trying to get revenge for some lost relative during the gulf war.

Maybe a "civilian" suicide bomber that wants to die for Allah against the foreign aggresors, takes out a humvee. Of course the next car that is only filled with innocent civilians that comes speeding toward the escort forces, refusing to stop (because if they do Saddam will kill their families) gets mowed down by the American escort team. See how wreckless this is to have an armed escort that kills a car load of innocent civilians? (that would make some pretty prictures) How can Saddam be held responsible for the hate of his people against this unwelcome armed force in his country. After all they came uninvited.

What mischief could we cause by having a huge crowd of children swarm the escort as it goes into a town for an inspection, accidents can happen (even planned ones). The picture of a crushed child under the tread of tracked vehicle would sure sell for a pretty penny to the media.

I'm sure some "forgotten" land mines could have been placed that manages to take out a few of the team. Too bad your team goes to unsafe places, we tried to warn them.

Your option might have worked or it might have just provided more entertainment for the evening news and more grief for the diplomats. Unwelcomed armed forces tend to make for less than "simple" solutions.

But then I am sure if you take more time, the UN could come up with even more options.

[Ddrak]

Gee.....isn't that the very same thing that France said publically they would veto if it ever came before the UNSC?

Yes. Just like the US would have vetoed anything that denounced a war.

Dd

[Kulaf]

I'm just damn tired of that same bullshit arguement every time it's brought up here when you plainly know it's false.

[Partha]

It's very simple, Aabe, and was spelled out when the option was floated: Troops go in with the inspectors. Attempting to freeze out the inspectors is much more unlikely with armed troops accompanying, and any hostile actions versus the armed troops = casus belli. Simple, neat, and it would have worked. Instead we got the shit we're in now.

Okay would THIS have been your last and final option before invasion? Or would you come up with something else if this failed?

It certainly would have been useful if it worked.

"It's very simple" you say?

What has to happen.
Saddam has to lose face and allow a foriegn armed force free reign of his country. Then he needs to stand by and do nothing so the team can complete its unfettered inspections. That would be simple.

What could he do about it?
A disagreement ensues and "someone fires first" (of course both sides will accuse the other of first fire)
Our friendly muslim TV broadcast shows dead innocent civilians (probably NOT killed in the exchange) proclaiming the infidels kill civilians and this is what happens when they are allowed in your country. The inspections were a cover and are only here to shame the muslim people.

We could set up a "civilian" sniper to pick off a few of the escort team, that was only trying to get revenge for some lost relative during the gulf war.

Maybe a "civilian" suicide bomber that wants to die for Allah against the foreign aggresors, takes out a humvee. Of course the next car that is only filled with innocent civilians that comes speeding toward the escort forces, refusing to stop (because if they do Saddam will kill their families) gets mowed down by the American escort team. See how wreckless this is to have an armed escort that kills a car load of innocent civilians? (that would make some pretty prictures) How can Saddam be held responsible for the hate of his people against this unwelcome armed force in his country. After all they came uninvited.

What mischief could we cause by having a huge crowd of children swarm the escort as it goes into a town for an inspection, accidents can happen (even planned ones). The picture of a crushed child under the tread of tracked vehicle would sure sell for a pretty penny to the media.

I'm sure some "forgotten" land mines could have been placed that manages to take out a few of the team. Too bad your team goes to unsafe places, we tried to warn them.

Your option might have worked or it might have just provided more entertainment for the evening news and more grief for the diplomats. Unwelcomed armed forces tend to make for less than "simple" solutions.

But then I am sure if you take more time, the UN could come up with even more options.

Okay, this isn't even REMOTELY logical.

First off, Saddam offered up the easy part.

Second, what terrorist bomber? Saddam paid them, he didn't make them. He also jailed more fundamentalists than probably any other country in the region besides Jordan (who leads for obvious reasons to anyone who knows the history of the region).

Third, the safety of the inspectors becomes incumbent on Saddam. He wouldn't have allowed them to be injured because he knew a really big boot was going to be shoved up his ass if he did.

Pretty goddamned sickening, watching you try and justify the series of Keystone Cops fumbles that marked this administration's handling of Iraq from 2002 onward.

[Aabe]

It's very simple, Aabe, and was spelled out when the option was floated: Troops go in with the inspectors. Attempting to freeze out the inspectors is much more unlikely with armed troops accompanying, and any hostile actions versus the armed troops = casus belli. Simple, neat, and it would have worked. Instead we got the shit we're in now.

Okay would THIS have been your last and final option before invasion? Or would you come up with something else if this failed?

It certainly would have been useful if it worked.

"It's very simple" you say?

What has to happen.
Saddam has to lose face and allow a foriegn armed force free reign of his country. Then he needs to stand by and do nothing so the team can complete its unfettered inspections. That would be simple.

What could he do about it?
A disagreement ensues and "someone fires first" (of course both sides will accuse the other of first fire)
Our friendly muslim TV broadcast shows dead innocent civilians (probably NOT killed in the exchange) proclaiming the infidels kill civilians and this is what happens when they are allowed in your country. The inspections were a cover and are only here to shame the muslim people.

We could set up a "civilian" sniper to pick off a few of the escort team, that was only trying to get revenge for some lost relative during the gulf war.

Maybe a "civilian" suicide bomber that wants to die for Allah against the foreign aggresors, takes out a humvee. Of course the next car that is only filled with innocent civilians that comes speeding toward the escort forces, refusing to stop (because if they do Saddam will kill their families) gets mowed down by the American escort team. See how wreckless this is to have an armed escort that kills a car load of innocent civilians? (that would make some pretty prictures) How can Saddam be held responsible for the hate of his people against this unwelcome armed force in his country. After all they came uninvited.

What mischief could we cause by having a huge crowd of children swarm the escort as it goes into a town for an inspection, accidents can happen (even planned ones). The picture of a crushed child under the tread of tracked vehicle would sure sell for a pretty penny to the media.

I'm sure some "forgotten" land mines could have been placed that manages to take out a few of the team. Too bad your team goes to unsafe places, we tried to warn them.

Your option might have worked or it might have just provided more entertainment for the evening news and more grief for the diplomats. Unwelcomed armed forces tend to make for less than "simple" solutions.

But then I am sure if you take more time, the UN could come up with even more options.

Okay, this isn't even REMOTELY logical.

First off, Saddam offered up the easy part.

Second, what terrorist bomber? Saddam paid them, he didn't make them. He also jailed more fundamentalists than probably any other country in the region besides Jordan (who leads for obvious reasons to anyone who knows the history of the region)..

So if I hire someone to kill someone else, I didnt make the murderer. Nice logic.

Third, the safety of the inspectors becomes incumbent on Saddam. He wouldn't have allowed them to be injured because he knew a really big boot was going to be shoved up his ass if he did.

Pretty goddamned sickening, watching you try and justify the series of Keystone Cops fumbles that marked this administration's handling of Iraq from 2002 onward.

Pretty sicking of you to say I am justifying this administrations fumbles.

I do not like war. I do not like the fact the UN screwed up something that SHOULD have been handled easily. With no war. Like an EMBARGO that was wasn't really an EMBARGO.

I honestly dont know why Mr. Bush took us to war. I know what he told us, but I do NOT get to listen behind closed doors, to know if Haliburton was there or not.

I do know, that some of you are Monday morning quarterbacking something through hindsight and are not always fair in your assessments.

I also know if all countries involved had done what they agreed to, this never would have come to pass.

Given the situation, I also feel that we should have done what we did or pulled out of the "unconditional cease fire" and stop propping up the fake embargo. I'm pretty bitter about our past participation of the oil-for-food deal right now.

But this whole thing long before invasion was screwed up and very complicated. People that pick a simplistic point of view because it supports their personal bias on the issue, do no one a service other than let us know who is speaking from ignorance.

[Ddrak]

Read "Plan of Attack" if you want the details of how the US ended up going to war in Iraq. It's a decent read.

The whole "Monday morning quarterbacking" criticism falls flat. Most of the people on the board here haven't changed their positions on the war since 2002. You really can't call someone a MMQ if they held the same position they did on Friday afternoon.

Dd

[Kulaf]

You couldn't "embargo" Iraq without placing a terrible burdon on its citizens. Already just from the limited sales of oil during the OFF program some are claiming that it cost 1 million Iraqi deaths. Continuing such a policy likely would have cause just as many deaths from Saddam's mismanaging of the monies from the OFF program as were caused in the war to remove him from power. It just would have been slower and more painful.

[Partha]

I do know, that some of you are Monday morning quarterbacking something through hindsight and are not always fair in your assessments.

Fuck you, Aabe. I was Sunday afternoon holding the goddamned clipboard while you were fucking snoozing in bed.

You think you're bringing a fount of wisdom to any of this? You weren't here in 2003 when we WERE hashing all this out. Talk about speaking from ignorance.

And yes, you ARE justifying. He flatly lied to us several times that have been pointed out again and again and again. Why did he lie? I don't know either. But he DID, and that's where you SHOULD be drawing the line. If you had any principles, that is. I'm flatly unsure that you do.

But this whole thing long before invasion was screwed up and very complicated. People that pick a simplistic point of view because it supports their personal bias on the issue, do no one a service other than let us know who is speaking from ignorance.

Then call your Maximum Leader on it, because he sure as hell picked a simplistic point of view to support his personal bias. Go check out the March 31, 2002 Time magazine article on the run up to war. Or read how Rummy was looking to justify an Iraq invasion on 9/11. [urlhttp://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/04/sept ... 0830.shtml]Things related and not.[/url]

Or you can go back and check the audio transcript from Powell's UN speech, compare it to what came out of his lying mouth and wonder at the difference.

Or you can go back and reread Rumsfeld saying on Meet The Press, "We know where they are".

They lied to you, Chuckles. And you continue justifying it.

[Ddrak]

I pretty much agree with Kula there - the whole embargo thing was doomed from the start. The question of how to punish a leader without punishing the people more is a very interesting one, especially if you don't really want to get into nation building.

I also think that you have to ramp up the invasiveness of the options you try. There's no point trying the same thing over and over (*cough* French plan for inspections *cough*) because it's bound to fail just the same way it did beforehand. I don't see any viable options between coercive inspections and flat out invasion and don't see any viable options between regular inspections and coercive inspections.

My point since 2002 has consistantly been that I was not opposed to an invasion, just the timing of the invasion.

Besides, invading Iraq is a clear violation of the Prime Directive.

Dd